HomeMy WebLinkAbout1299th CSC Meeting (August 22. 2012)1299" REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The 1299t' Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday,
August 22, 2012. The meeting was called to order at 5:38 p.m.
Members Present:
Also Present:
Brian Buda, Equipment Operator II
Curtis Caid, Police Chief
Ward Cowen, Sewer Maintenance Worker I
Gerald Evans, Equipment Operator I
Linda Fry, Police Dispatcher
Kenneth Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union
Local 192
Kenneth Hitchcock, Senior Police Officer
Scott Morgan, President, Livonia Police Officers
Association (LPDA)
Susan Myers, Account Clerk III
Roger Ponder, Equipment Operator 11
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairman
Brian Meakin
Charlotte S. Mahoney
Jeremy Schaeffer, Equipment Operator II
Thomas Stadler, Sewer Maintenance
Worker II
Salam Toma, Equipment Mechanic II
Andrew Toth, Custodian
Kenneth M. Widmer, Chief Roads Steward,
AFSCME Union Local 192
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public
Service
Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSCME
Union Local 192
Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-78 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 12W Regular Meeting held
Wednesday, July 15, 2012, be approved as submitted.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-79 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental
Correspondence of August 13, 2012, from James Brophy, as approved for
submission by Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting additional Family
Illness leave, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative
approval of Mr. Brophy's request to charge an additional three (3) twenty-four (24)
hour days of family illness to his sick bank.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-80 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter received on August 17,
2012, from Louis Rivas, Water Meter Repairer 11, as approved for submission by
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, and Kevin Maillard, Director of
Public Works, requesting an extension of an unpaid medical leave of absence, the
Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of an
extension of Mr. Rivas' unpaid medical leave of absence to November 1, 2012.
Paget 1299u Regular Meeting Augurt 22, 2012
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-81 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of August 20, 2012,
from Susan Hoff, Deputy City Clerk/Elections Coordinator, requesting a leave of
absence from the classified service, the Civil Service Commission does hereby
affirm the administrative approval of a leave of absence from the classified
service for Ms. Hoff for one (1) year, commencing September 1, 2012, pursuant
to Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, RULE 16, CERTIFICATION,
APPOINTMENT AND REINSTATEMENT, Section 16.5, Appointment of an
Emolovee in the Classified Service to a Position in the Unclassified Service.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-82 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of
August 10, 2012, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11, to
Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, regarding the passing point for the
written test for Service Representative (Water) (1335 p.), the Civil Service
Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of the passing point
of 70% out of a maximum raw score of 100 in the written test, or a raw score of
70.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-83 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of August 10,
2012, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11, to Robert F. Biga,
Human Resources Director, regarding the passing point for the written test for
Water Meter Repairer 1 (1336 p.), the Civil Service Commission does hereby
affirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 70% out of a maximum
raw score of 100 in the written test, or a raw score of 70.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-84 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Service Representative (Water)
(1335 p.).
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-85 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Water Meter Repairer I
(1336 p.).
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-86 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Fire Equipment Mechanic
Supervisor (1337 p.).
Page 1299u Regular Meeting Auguat 22, 2012
The Commission received and filed the following:
a. Status of Temporary Employees Report for July 2012.
b. Non -Resident Report as of August 1, 2012.
C. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of August 1,
2012.
d. Affirmative Action Report for July 2012.
e. Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of July 2012.
f. Council Resolutions from the meeting of July 18, 2012 with minutes to be
approved August 15, 2012:
#298-12, referring the issue of the cunent hiring process and staffing levels
of the Livonia Police Department to the Administration for its report and
recommendation.
g. Letter of August 7, 2012, from Michael L. O'Hearon, PLC, Attorney, transmitting a
Petition for Act 312 Arbitration on behalf of the Livonia Professional Fire Fighters
Union, Local 1164.
h. HR News Magazine article from August 2012, entitled, 'Civil Service Reform a
Concern for Many."
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-87 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the expiring eligible lists for the
month of September 2012 — Custodian (934 o.c.) and Equipment Operator III
(1321 p.), the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the approval of the
extension of the Custodian (934 o.c.) eligible list for six (6) months to March 14,
2013 and the extension of the Equipment Operator III (1321 p.) eligible list for six
(6) months to March 9, 2013.
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, explained that the request from Linda Fry, Police
Dispatcher, to have her name added to the Clerk -Typist I eligible list was really a request for
reinstatement to the City general employment as a Clerk -Typist I. Mr. Biga stated Ms. Fry was
a general City employee and she took an open -competitive examination for Police Dispatcher.
She has decided she no longer wishes to be a Police Dispatcher. Mr. Biga further explained
that she has no return rights to any City position. What she is planning to do is terminate her
employment and then be considered for reinstatement. If the Commission approves Ms. Fry's
request for reinstatement, then for two years, whenever there is a vacancy as a Clerk -Typist
and we generate a Certification for a new hire, her name would be included with the three
names being certified. Mr. Biga stated the two years would be from the date she terminated
her employment.
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-88 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of July 22, 2012, from
Linda Fry, Police Dispatcher, requesting her name be added to a Clerk -Typist
eligible list, and having discussion with Robert F. Biga, Human Resources
Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve allowing Ms. Fry's
name to be considered for employment as a Clerk -Typist should a vacancy
occur, for two years from the date of Ms. Fry's tennination, with the
Page 1299" Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
understanding that the Appointing Authority is under no obligation to interview or
hire Ms. Fry.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-89 RESOLVED, That having reviewed a letter of August 2, 2012, from
Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, and memorandum of August 8, 2012, from
Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II, to Robert F. Biga, Human
Resources Director, requesting a promotional examination for Training
Coordinator (Fire Department) and proposed qualifications and parts of
examination and weights, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the
following qualifications and parts of examination and weights:
QUALIFICATIONS
This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia, who by the closing date of
this announcement, are:
Employed in the Fire Division of the Department of Public Safety, and
Have at least five (5) years full-time work experience as a Firefighter
and/or Fire Officer with the City of Livonia.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Written Test -50% Assessment Center -50%
'Note: The top scoring seven (7) candidates will be invited to participate in the Assessment
Center part of the examination. Candidates must pass both the Written Test and the
Assessment Center Rating in order to be placed on the eligible list. Final selection will be from
the top three (3) scoring applicants, including education and seniority credit, by a panel
consisting of the Mayor, Fire Chief, and the President of the Livonia Fire Fighters Union, with
the Mayor having the final authority of selection.
Mr. Biga stated the request for an Engineering Assistant I promotional examination was the
first time the position has been filled by the Public Service Division and the qualifications are
appropriate for that Division vs. the Engineering Division.
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, stated that the Division is requesting the
examination for Engineering Assistant I not due to a vacancy or a new position, but rather an
upgrade of an existing position. Mr. Wilson explained that with the reduction in the workforce
in the past years, the Department of Public Works has lost a number of positions, but there are
still Federal and State mandates in the environmental area, road millage program and other
needs. The department has also had to upgrade some positions in recent years necessitated
by the fundamental changes in the duties and responsibilities outside of what the
classifications previously handled.
Mr. Wilson stated the Department has specific needs and skill sets required for this
Engineering Assistant I position. Due to the loss of other positions, a great deal of additional
Pages 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
duties and responsibilities have been placed in this position including the road program, the
IDEP program, which is a mandated program having to do with storm water monitoring, tax
map, parcel updates, vehicle and other asset administration, sidewalk program, GPS work and
other areas of work that were previously performed by now eliminated positions.
Mr. Wilson stated the Engineering Trainee was hired almost five (5) years ago and is working
far beyond the level of a trainee. He stated that in a lot of areas, the trainee is now the trainer.
The Engineering Assistant series is appropriate for the work that is being performed and the
employee will be frozen at the initial pay level, per the union contract. Different qualifications
and descriptions of work for the same classification is the none, not the exception, in job
announcements. A Secretary classification in the Law Department is going to be involved in
different work than a Secretary in the DPW or Fire Department and the qualifications will reflect
that. Mr. Wilson stated an Account Clerk in DPW won't necessarily be doing the same tasks
as an Account Clerk in the Accounting area.
Mr. Wilson further stated the qualifications and description of work is going to be different for
this Engineering Assistant I position than for that of a field Engineering Assistant I in the
Engineering Division. The proposed qualifications and description of work that is in front of the
Commissioners is not going to become the new norm for this classification in the future; the
work is different between Engineering and Public Service and the skill sets and knowledge are
different for this work. Mr. Wilson reiterated there is no vacancy; there is an employee already
in the position whose duties and responsibilities have greatly changed and we need to affect
this upgrade to reflect those changes.
Ms. Mahoney inquired if by upgrading an existing position, an individual would have to take an
exam and Mr. Wilson stated the employee would have to apply for the position and go through
the process like anyone else. Ms. Mahoney then asked if other employees could apply for this
exam. Mr. Wilson indicated the qualifications require that the applicant must have status as an
Engineering Trainee. Ms. Mahoney stated there really was only one person who would qualify
for this exam.
Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated they welcome a promotional
examination for their union members, however, they do not agree with the qualifications and
description of work. Mr. Grzembski stated they wanted to keep the qualifications the same to
keep the pool of applicants open so others could take the test. Employees who have taken the
exam before would like the opportunity to test because it is an upgrade. This classification
wage is higher than that of an Equipment Operator 11 and he wasn't sure about a Construction
Worker 1, but prior to this announcement Construction Worker I's were able to sign up to take
this test. Mr. Grzembski stated there was an individual present at the meeting that took the
lest Iasi time, but under the new qualifications and description of work, this person is now
ineligible to take the test. Mr. Grzembski stated they wanted to keep continuity in the
classification and it would give a better pool of applicants. Mr. Grzembski stated the individual
who took the test before probably wanted an opportunity to take it again and he would like to
speak.
Salam (Randy) Toma, Equipment Mechanic 11, introduced himself, stated he works for
Equipment Maintenance and he is in his twentieth year of employment. He stated he took a
temporary promotion in the Engineering Division and worked for a little over two years as an
Engineering Assistant I (TA). He agreed with the Union president, that he would like to have
Page 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
the opportunity to take the test with the qualifications as stated in the prior announcement. Mr.
Toma explained that he had great reviews from his supervisor in the two years, and he went
back to his original job as an Equipment Mechanic, but he would like the opportunity to take
the test again.
Ms. Mahoney inquired if the current Engineering Trainee is upgraded into the Engineering
Assistant classification, it wouldn't open up a position for a new Engineering Trainee. Mr.
Wilson stated that was coned; it was an upgrade for an existing position. Ms. Mahoney
inquired if another individual took the job what happens to the Engineering Trainee position.
Mr. Wilson stated the employee would presumably be laid off.
Ken Widmer, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated that if this is just an
upgrade of a position for one person, they would like to sit down and look up some
qualifications for this specific job, because this job is not an Engineering Assistant job.
Mr. Widmer explained in his opinion, the Engineering Assistant is in a completely different
Division, a completely different building and the qualifications for that job are completely
different and the entire job is different. If the Department wanted to upgrade a person, they
should sit down and come up with a new job description, a new job title and a new job pay
scale.
Mr. Tatigian stated when he saw Engineering Assistant, he was thinking in terms of the
Engineering Division. Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Tatigian to understand that the Engineering
Trainee is in the Public Service Division.
Mr. Widmer stated the union would like to avoid having postings put up that are designed for
individuals. The whole idea of the union is so that any time a posting goes up, anybody who
has the seniority and qualifications can move up into those jobs. Once there is a practice of
putting up postings that are for one individual, it is a bad practice. Mr. Widmer believed this
practice moves up individual people based on the "good old boy" system. The union is willing
to welcome a promotion for one of their employees, but they would like to sit down and make
sure the job posting is titled adequately for the job and the list of qualifications are for any
member who is qualified for that job in the future, and they can sign for the posting and take
the test. He referred to the announcement which indicates there is no written lest for the job, it
is 70% interview and 30% departmental rating, but goes to 100% departmental rating if there is
only one qualified candidate.
Ms. Mahoney inquired if we were creating a job or are we trying to allow an individual in a
current position take on additional work? Mr. Wilson stated the Engineering Trainee has
already taken this work on and is working far beyond the classification of an Engineering
Trainee now, based on the elimination of other positions and the reassignment of duties.
Ms. Mahoney stated this was to provide the employee an opportunity to achieve the pay level
that would be appropriate for the work that the individual is currently doing.
Mr. Tatigian inquired if the union was correct in that the department is creating some new
classification requirements for the Engineering Assistant I. Mr. Wilson stated there are
different qualifications. They are different jobs with different work in two different divisions. Mr.
Wilson indicated this was the norm in a variety of areas that have the same classification but
there are different qualifications and work depending on the department/division. The
department has had an Engineering Trainee in Public Service Division, but they have not had
Page] 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
an Engineering Assistant I in the past, so this is new to the Public Service Division. Mr. Wilson
stated the Public Service Division and Engineering Division are both under the Department of
Public Works. Mr. Wilson referred to the Secretary 11 and the Forestry Section and the Tree
Artisan that were recently before the Commission. Mr. Tatigian stated here the Department is
changing qualifications and that is the distinction.
Ms. Mahoney asked for clarification if the Engineering Assistant I classification does not exist
currently in the Public Service Division. Mr. Wilson responded that it does exist in the Public
Works Department, under the Engineering Division, but under the Public Service Division, it
does not exist. Ms. Mahoney asked what the Engineering Trainee was training for; to
potentially move over to the Engineering Division? Mr. Wilson stated the Engineering Trainee
was hired in the Public Service Division not the Engineering Division. Ms. Mahoney asked
what the career path was for moving out of the Trainee classification. Mr. Wilson responded
that the Trainee classification was the appropriate classification for the work that was being
done five years ago. It doesn't reflect the work that is being done now. Ms. Mahoney stated
now the Department is changing the work structure for an Engineering Trainee to include some
other duties and in the process attempting to give a monetary increase and that is why they
are making it an Engineering Assistant 1. Mr. Wilson stated it was the appropriate series for
this position. Ms. Mahoney asked if the Engineering Assistant I in Public Service could have
different qualifications than an Engineering Assistant I in the Engineering Division. Mr. Wilson
said absolutely.
Mr. Grzembski stated Mr. Widmer had a copy of the previous announcement for Engineering
Assistant I in the Engineering Division and other employees were able to take the test for that.
Mr. Grzembski explained that usually if someone is an Engineering Assistant I and there is an
opportunity to move somewhere, it is posted by status first. Mr. Grzembski understood Mr.
Wilson to say that future tests, if they have any, will be the same as the previous
announcement. Mr. Wilson clarified what he was indicating is that the qualifications meet the
job and he wouldn't apply these particular qualifications to the field Engineering Assistant I job
in the Engineering Division; it is different work. Mr. Grzembski explained that a future problem
may be created when there is a need for an Engineering Assistant I in the Engineering
Division, it gets posted by status first. This person now, who is an Engineering Assistant, and
who these other employees weren't able to test for the job and compete against, could go over
to the Engineering Division, thereby denying the other employees an opportunity for a
promotion. Mr. Grzembski agreed with Mr. Widmer that there is a process to discuss new
positions in the union and this sounded like a new position to him. Mr. Grzembski stated it
could hurt their members down the line because if there was an Engineering Assistant I
opening in Engineering, this person could go over there by means of status and the other
people who were denied the opportunity to take the test now would be out of that opportunity if
the qualifications revert to what they were previously.
Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga if it made sense to refer this back to staff to work this out. Mr.
Tatigian thought this should have been worked out before it came before the Commission.
Robert Biga explained that a position, by Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, is a
collection of duties and responsibilities, but there are a variety of positions throughout the City
where the positions are similar in content and they are called the same job title. However, the
duties and responsibilities are different from one department to another. For example, a Clerk -
Typist in the Police Department will have certain duties and responsibilities. In the Mayor's
Page 0 1299u Regular Meeting August 22, 2012
office a Clerk-Typist will have different duties and responsibilities, but the functions performed
are basically the same, so we call them the same title. By the same token, depending upon
the job, there may be a particular set of qualifications that are appropriate for that particular
position and there are different qualifications under the same classification. In this instance
there is a position in the Public Service Division that has engineering type functions that it
performs and the department is looking at that and saying the appropriate classification is an
Engineering Assistant I. Mr. Biga stated it was not uncommon to have two classifications with
different qualifications. He also stated it was also possible to have two different job contents.
Mr. Biga advised that if they wanted to create a new job classification they would have to get
both Civil Service Commission and City Council approval. Mr. Biga stated the City is in the
mode of reducing classifications and combining them into a broader based job title.
Mr. Tatigian assumed that qualifications number 3 and 4 are new qualifications that were not
normally listed on an Engineering Assistant I. Mr. Biga stated the Commission could eliminate
qualifications 3 and 4 and there would still only be one person eligible for this examination.
Mr. Tatigian asked if the next announcement for Engineering Assistant I these qualifications
would still be listed. Mr. Biga explained that for the Engineering Division there would be
different qualifications because one might be doing field work and one might be doing office
work.
Mr. Tatigian remembered there was a Legal Stenographer classification and that changed to
Secretary III, but a Secretary III in the Law Department and a Secretary III in the Finance
Department had completely different duties and one couldn't do the job of the other.
Ms. Mahoney stated based on what Mr. Tatigian just said, it's possible if there was a job
posting for an Engineering Assistant I in the Engineering Division, even if this person had
Engineering Assistant I status in Public Service, they may not meet the qualifications for the
Engineering division, is that correct? Mr. Biga stated that was correct.
Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga if he thought it would help to be referred back to see if they could
resolve the issue. Mr. Biga stated in talking to the Union, it could be done, but it will take
longer to get it accomplished. He further stated this has been done in the past elsewhere in
the City and there have been many opportunities where there has been a single person who is
in a particular position and the duties had changed over time so the departments come to the
Civil Service Department and want to upgrade the position. Mr. Biga stated upgrade isn't
really the appropriate terminology. It is really reclassifying that position based upon its
assigned duties and responsibilities. In the contract, the City has the right to do that and what
the department is attempting to do is take that position and assign this classification to upgrade
the individual who is there.
Mr. Grzembski asked again, if an opening comes up by status in the Engineering division, is
Mr. Biga saying this person could not take that position just by status? Mr. Biga responded
that if the individual doesn't meet the qualifications for that position they wouldn't. Mr. Biga
slated it could be posted by status but they would still need to meet the qualifications. Mr.
Grzembski read the job description and stated the duties could be performed by some of their
members that could have been qualified for that job. Mr. Grzembski believed there is
something in the contract that discusses rates for new positions and the Union would be open
to discuss that because this is a new position and then it wouldn't harm any of the other
members who could qualify for another Engineering Assistant I job down the line.
Page 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Mr. Tatigian slated this isn't a regular Engineering Assistant I job, this is specifically for the
Public Service Division and if the City needs somebody for this purpose, we can't stand in the
way of the City's making that request. Mr. Grzembski would like the job to be called something
else and they would be glad to accept this into their union as a different title because they see
repercussions down the line.
Mr. Tama said he worked in the Engineering Division and from his experience he was
temporarily assigned (TA'd) into the job for 2 years. Mr. Toma stated an employee was
expected as an Engineering Assistant I to do field work and office work. He stated currently
there is a boss and two employees but there used to be five or six people in the department.
He further stated there was also an Engineering Assistant 11 position which was vacated a few
years ago and the position hasn't been upgraded. Any of the employees that are there are
more than happy to do what this Trainee position does in the Public Service Division, so he
just wanted to let the Commissioners know that the employee is expected to do whatever it is
that it takes. Mr. Tatigian reiterated that the City has the right to upgrade their qualifications.
Mr. Toma stated you could give it another title, but the union's and his perspective is, if you are
calling it the same thing and you make an exception, it makes it difficult down the line for other
employees.
Mr. Biga stated the position is in the Public Service Division and what we are talking about is a
classification, and as Mr. Tatigian has indicated, you could put a parenthetical on the title, and
call it Engineering Assistant I (Environmental). He stated this is not a new classification and
the reference the union is citing is one of those things that the Union and he were having some
difficulties with and Mr. Biga called this "contract cleanup" The contract says, "When the City
proposes to establish new classifications in the classified service..." Mr. Biga stated they are
not creating a new classification; they are using an existing classification.
Mr. Widmer stated the main problem the union has is when you take an Engineering Assistant
I job, rewrite the qualifications and put the job in a new department. The problem with that is
that it gives Management the power to take this person in this department over here, give them
a title of a job that is usually in this department and rewrite the qualifications for them and put
them in and say "we're not making a new job, we're not making a new classification, we're
merely putting this classification in a new department and writing the qualifications for this
department' If you go ahead, it allows the department to pick and choose employees and
rewrite classifications and descriptions, and promote people as they deem necessary. The
Union feels when the next Engineering Assistant I job comes up, the qualifications that are in
front of you are not going to be the same; they will be different for whoever is next. The
qualifications need to be consistent and that is all the union wants, so the most qualified
people get promoted, not the people that are wanted to be promoted. Mr. Widmer again stated
the union is more than happy to have a promotion, but if departments are able to rewrite
positions throughout the City and it's different in each department, they are going to rewrite the
description for each person, that's too much. There should be a new title, new qualifications
and there should be a test so the employees who do well on the test are put at the top of that
list.
Mr. Meakin asked if the position was a union position and he was told it was
Page 10 1299" Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-90 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of August 7, 2012, from
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service and Kevin Maillard, Director of
Public Works, and memorandum of August 17, 2012, from Derrick L. Washington,
Personnel Analyst II to Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, requesting a
promotional examination for Engineering Assistant I and proposed qualifications
and parts of examination and weights, and having discussion with Brian Wilson,
Superintendent of Public Service; Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union
Local 192; Ken Widmer, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Salam
(Randy) Tama, Equipment Mechanic 11; and Robert Biga, Human Resources
Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following
qualifications and parts of examination and weights:
QUALIFICATIONS
This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of
this announcement:
Are employed in the Department of Public Works and have regular status;
and
Have status as an Engineering Trainee; and
Have a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in
Environmental Studies or a related field; and
Be skilled with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the use of
ArcView and ArcGIS.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Interview -70% Departmental Rating -30%'
Candidates must pass the Interview in order to be placed on the eligible list. Pursuant to
AFSCME Local 192 PROMOTIONS 20.1b., in competitive examinations which include
Departmental Ratings, the Departmental Rating from 0 to 100 will count as 30% of the
examination, but a score of under 70 will not disqualify the candidate from continuing the
process.
'In the event there is only one (1) qualified applicant for the position, the Parts of Examination
and Weights will be 100% Departmental Rating.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-91 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of August 20,
2012, from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, transmitting requests from
City of Livonia employees to donate vacation time to Barbara Wesley, Custodian
(RPT), the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the donation of
vacation time which will be converted to an equivalent time off based on
Ms. Wesley's rate of pay.
Page 11 1299u Regular Meeting August 22, 2012
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, announced LPDA Grievance #12-259, regarding the
use of Police Reserve Officers for the City of Westland, and stated he did not see anyone
from the Department present at the meeting.
Police Officer Scott Morgan, President, Livonia Police Officers Association (LPDA) was
present at the meeting to represent the LPDA.
Chairman Tatigian asked if there was anyone present from the Chiefs office and Officer
Morgan responded there was not. Mr. Tatigian asked if anyone was notified about the
meeting and Mr. Biga stated they received the notification and he wasn't sure why someone
was not present.
Mr. Tatigian stated that with all due respect, he was not comfortable proceeding with this item
without someone from the Chiefs office present. At 6:15 p.m. Officer Morgan offered to step
out of the meeting to make a call to see if anyone from the Chiefs office was available. The
Commission agreed to that and they moved on to the next Agenda item.
Before the review of AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #12-06, from Gerald Evans,
Equipment Operator I, regarding an upgrade to Equipment Operator II, Ken Grzembski,
President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated it was ironic that someone else can get an
upgrade so easily and someone else has a hard time getting an upgrade.
Mr. Grzembski referred to a Letter of Understanding in the 192 contract, and stated that
during negotiations in the 2007-10 agreement, the parties agreed to the following:
1. Effective December 1, 2007 all Laborers will be made Equipment Operator Is
(EOI's).
2. Current EOls and Laborers as of December 1, 2007 will have the option to become
Equipment Operator Its (EOII's) immediately after obtaining a Temporary Instruction
Permit/Commercial Drivers License (TIP/CDL) and will be required to convert the TIP
to a CDL and maintain the CDL.
Mr. Grzembski stated those are the most pertinent facts and the grievant followed those
provisions. The grievant got his TIP at the end of September 2011 and the employer is
responsible for scheduling the training for the CDL licenses. Mr. Grzembski stated this didn't
happen until March. According to the Letter of Understanding, Mr. Evans should have been
made an Equipment Operator II in September 2011 and received that pay rate.
Mr. Grzembski stated they understood that Management and the office is shorthanded. He
believed the office supervisor used to take care of that and there no longer is an office
supervisor. Mr. Grzembski said the upgrade was never processed and Mr. Evans has not
received his raise and his promotion. He stated it was kind of a simple thing.
Mr. Wilson stated years ago Mr. Evans had the opportunity to upgrade from his Equipment
Operator I position to Equipment Operator II by obtaining a CDL, but he did not avail himself
of this opportunity and procrastinated in doing so for many years. Mr. Wilson stated Mr.
Evans finally went to the Secretary of State in September 2011 and got his Temporary
Page 12 1299"' Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Instruction Permit (TIP) for his Commercial Drivers License (CDL). Almost six months later
when the learner permit was about to expire, Mr. Evans finally took the road test so he could
go from his learners permit to a regular CDL, which would allow him to function as an
Equipment Operator II. Mr. Wilson said the opportunity to schedule the road test was always
there during these months and in fact, they were continually having road tests as they had a
number of employees that were upgrading their CDLs from a "B" to an "A". As discussed in
the Labor Management meeting which they had on this issue, the department agreed to
upgrade Mr. Evans to an Equipment Operator II, effective on the date that he actually passed
his road test. This was equitable since Mr. Evans only had a TIP we could not use him as an
Equipment Operator during the months that he had not yet taken his road test. As a
resolution to this grievance, the department proposed that he be promoted to Equipment
Operator II effective March 20, 2012, which was the day he took his road test and received his
certificate.
Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated after Mr. Evans received his
TIP he went to find out when he would get training so he could take his road test and he was
put off, so the problem wasn't him, it was also management.
Ken Grzembski stated if you read the letter of understanding, Mr. Evans complied.
Employees are supposed to get the raise as soon as they get their TIP. Mr. Grzembski
further stated that at the end of August or beginning of September he asked Mr. Wilson if the
letter of intent was still there because they didn't have the contract yet, and he said he would
have no problem upgrading the grievant. Mr. Grzembski explained that as far as
procrastinating, there is nothing in there that said you had to do this by a certain date.
Brian Wilson reiterated it took Mr. Evans years to take this opportunity and after he got the
TIP, six months went by before he took the road test. The department is more than happy to
upgrade Mr. Evans on the date he passed the road test, but they couldn't utilize his services
for the six months that he had a TIP until he got the road lest and got his regular CDL. Ms.
Young stated every other person was paid immediately after receiving a TIP. Mr. Grzembski
said he was involved in the contract discussions when this was negotiated. He staled part of
the intent was there was a new pay scale for the Equipment Operator I's and it was brought in
by the City with the intent of keeping the individual in the position they were in and giving them
the upgrade and not moving them. Mr. Grzembski staled as far as scheduling the road test
and training, that is management's responsibility. He said the grievant did ask for that several
times and as he said, everyone is working shorthanded, and the old office manager was
responsible for a lot of the scheduling and pay upgrades. Mr. Grzembski reiterated it was late
August or September when he asked Mr. Wilson if this still applied and he told him there
would be no problem upgrading the grievant, who is the last person to eligible for this
upgrade.
Mr. Wilson stated that under the new contract Mr. Evans is required to have a CDL. It is not
voluntary. Mr. Tatigian wanted to know if Mr. Evans asked for the test and Mr. Wilson stated
he didn't have any specific knowledge if he asked or didn't ask. He just knew that they were
giving road tests all during these months. Mr. Grzembski wasn't positive, but he didn't think
any training or road tests were given until January 2012 and beyond.
Mr. Meakin referred to #2 of the Letter of Understanding that states, "Current EOls and
Laborers as of December 1, 2007 will have the option to become Equipment Operator Its
Page 13 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
(EOII's) immediately after obtaining a Temporary Instruction Permit/Commercial Drivers
License (TIP/CDL) and will be required to convert the TIP to a CDL and maintain the CDL."
Mr. Meakin asked Mr. Biga if we were automatically supposed to give Mr. Evans his raise at
the TIP.
Robert Biga, stated he was involved in the contract negotiations and he referred to #3 which
states, "Current EOI's and Laborers as of December 1, 2007 who choose not to become EOII's
will retain the old EOI wage level plus any wage adjustments agreed to for the 2007-2010
Agreement" Mr. Biga explained that if someone didn't immediately after 2007 upgrade their
license to a TIP, you could assume they have chosen not to become Equipment Operator II
and they have elected not to be upgraded. Now all of a sudden, time goes by and there is a
new requirement under the new contract that employees have to have a CDL. It seemed to
Mr. Biga, that Mr. Evans already made his decision to not be upgraded. Now he has decided
he better get upgraded so he can retain his Equipment Operator I status and conceivably get
an Equipment Operator II. Mr. Biga stated they attempted to come up with a compromise and
the Union later appealed the Labor-Management decision. Mr. Biga stated he could argue that
the Union already exercised their right and therefore, Mr. Evans was not entitled to this
contract provision.
Mr. Tatigian asked to hear from Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans stated it shouldn't matter how long he waited because he got the CDL in time. Mr.
Tatigian asked why he didn't complain about it and Mr. Evans responded that he asked over
the six months when he was going to get his road test and he said he was told they were going
to put his name on a list but it never happened.
Mr. Tatigian stated Mr. Evans could have fled a grievance if he thought he was being denied
the opportunity to take the road test. Mr. Grzembski stated it didn't matter when, he complied
and the language states you get it when you get the TIP. Mr. Wilson staled they should have
fled a grievance in September 2011, not wait and file a grievance months later. There are
time limits in the union contract as far as filing grievances.
Mr. Grzembski responded that as stated, it is an ongoing grievance. It occurred, and the
grievant tried to get the training and road test. Mr. Grzembski stated that management is the
one that schedules training; they were asleep at the wheel. The grievant asked for the training
and road test on more than one occasion. Mr. Grzembski stated the department is in an
upheaval. They are missing an office manager who used to do a lot of those things and he
believed the grievant talked to the foreman that handles the training and put his copy of his TIP
on that foreman's desk.
Mr. Wilson stated since he signs the bills to pay for the road tests, there were people getting
TIPS and road tests all winter long. Mr. Tatigian stated if Mr. Evans was eligible for a pay
raise and he wasn't getting it, he would be complaining. Mr. Grzembski cited an example of a
person not getting a step increase for months and months. He asked Brian Buda if he
received his step increase after he got a promotion and Mr. Buda confirmed it was six months
before he received his step increase. Mr. Grzembski wanted to reiterate one thing. He
wanted to comment on the Chief Roads Steward's statement of the "good old boy" system.
You give the upgrade to who you want and who you don't, you don't. Ms. Young stated that
Page 14 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Mr. Evans tried to file a grievance and that was their union's fault because someone didn't file
the grievance.
Roger Ponder, Equipment Operator 11, introduced himself and he said there were other
mitigating circumstances with this. He stated all the Equipment Operator I's basically were
upgraded. A lot of the Equipment Operator Its had a "B" license which allowed them to drive
a vehicle with air brakes but they did not have an "A" license. Starting in January, all of the
Equipment Operator It's were required to come in and get the "A" license, which meant they
had to go back to the Secretary of State and take another test and get scheduled with the only
tester that could give the test for a CDL license. He would conduct three tests a day.
Everyone at DPW was trying to do this training and with everything that was involved, you had
to have a big trailer and you had to practice backing it in, you had to take a road test, there
was only one or maybe two people doing the training for all these different drivers and only
one person giving the test. The tests were given at Ward Church and everyone stood in line,
waited their turn, and there was only one person scheduling it. The fact that Mr. Evans didn't
get it for six months, may be because it was determined they needed a specific person to test
first, and a specific person second, etc. Mr. Ponder said he was just trying to draw the
Commission a picture of why from January on, until Mr. Evans got to take his test, there were
all the people at DPW upgrading from a "B" license to an "A".
Mr. Grzembski asked Mr. Ponder who was the person doing the scheduling of these tests and
Mr. Ponder replied it was Mr. Bryant, the only foreman in the Roads section. All the
scheduling was done through him.
Mr. Biga asked why it took 3-1/2years for Mr. Evans to get the CDL. He hasn't heard a good
reason yet.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-92 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #12-06, from Gerald Evans, regarding an upgrade to Equipment
Operator 11, and having discussion with Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME
Union Local 192; Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192;
Roger Ponder, Equipment Operator 11; Brian Buda, Equipment Operator 11;
Gerald Evans, Equipment Operator I; Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public
Service; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service
Commission does hereby approve the upgrade to Equipment Operator II for Mr.
Evans to be effective retroactive to March 20, 2012.
Officer Morgan returned to the meeting and he was able to contact Chief Caid who was now
present. The Chief apologized for not being at the meeting earlier. Officer Morgan stated that
Article 46 explains how Police Reserve Officers can be used and that regular Police Officers
would have to be utilized with them and a detail sheet would have to go out. The LPOA feels
that money has been taken away from them because an overtime detail didn't go out and the
Police Reserves were utilized in a traffic function, which was a non -emergency function. The
department knew well in advance of the 4" of July festival taking place what the City of
Westland was requesting and an overtime sheet could have been put out and the officers
could have volunteered for this overtime, but it did not occur. The union is requesting that the
Page 15 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Commission pay the officers. Mr. Tatigian asked when this occurred and Officer Morgan
replied it occurred on the 4'h of July, which was a Wednesday and it occurred in the City of
Westland. Mr. Tatigian asked is this was a one-time happening and Officer Morgan did not
know. Officer Morgan did state this was the first time this occurred. He wasn't sure if the City
of Westland would need assistance next year.
Ms. Mahoney asked if the City of Westland had Police Reserves. Officer Morgan stated he
was not sure. Chief Caid confirmed that Westland does not have Police Reserve Officers.
Chief Caid again apologized for being late and staled he was unaware of the meeting. In
response to the grievance, Chief Caid stated he denied the grievance and it was his belief that
the LPOA hasn't been harmed in this manner. Chief Caid further stated as the Chief, he has
the right to assign personnel and manage those affairs. He did so appropriately under the
Agreement and by the Charter. In this particular situation, the Westland Police Chief
contacted Chief Caid regarding the City of Livonia Police Reserve program and through their
ongoing discussion, he asked if we could assign Police Reserves to their 4" of July event for
point traffic control, as a one-time event. Chief Caid explained we frequently use Police
Reserves at point traffic control for our functions too and that Officer Morgan was correct in
that this was not an emergency situation. It was planned well in advance, in fact it even went
before City Council who voted on it and approved it as a one-time occurrence. Police
Reserve Officers were assigned to work with regular Westland officers as we typically do in
Livonia when we have reserve details. Being that Westland officers were monitoring and
supervising our reserves and the reserve officers are unrepresented, Chief Caid did not see
any violation with the labor agreement, so he authorized the reserves for that short period of
time.
Mr. Tatigian asked if these Reserve Officers were compensated by Westland. Chief Caid said
they were. He explained there was an agreement drawn up with our Law Department
between Westland and Livonia so they would assume all liability and indemnify the City of
Livonia during the time the police reserves worked with Westland. Mr. Tatigian reiterated this
was a onetime event. He also wanted to take this opportunity to commend the Police
department for their work on the Livonia Spree, stating both the regular Police and Police
Reserves did a great job. Chief Caid thanked Mr. Tatigian.
Mr. Meakin asked how many Police Reserve Officers worked for Westland. Chief Caid said
he thought about six officers, but he couldn't be sure. They worked for approximately four
hours. Officer Morgan stated he thought there were about ten reserve officers that worked on
the Westland assignment. Officer Morgan stated he had several members express their
concern that they were not asked to work this detail and why were there Police Reserve
Officers working it when traditionally, the regular Police Officers have been assigned or at
least offered the opportunity to work. Officer Morgan indicated this would be a non -issue if the
LPOA members were offered this detail and they declined or no one volunteered to work.
Officer Morgan stated he did have officers that would have stepped up and worked. Mr.
Meakin stated the City of Westland requested reserve officers, they couldn't afford regular
officers. Officer Morgan stated this was violating their past practice of how reserve officers
have been used in the past. Mr. Meakin stated this was a first time event so how could it be a
past practice. Officer Morgan asked if the Commissioners read Article 46 in the contract. He
stated the City of Livonia doesn't allow Police Reserve officers to write tickets unless regular
officers are with them or unless an officer is overseeing that activity like directing traffic — our
Page 16 1299u Regular Meeting Augua 22, 2012
traffic details that reserves are going on, usually there is an officer that oversees that, so by
contracting them to another City, he wondered why the regular officers weren't invited.
Ms. Mahoney stated this didn't occur in the City of Livonia; it occurred in the City of Westland.
She doubted the City of Westland would want to pay our officers and their officers to deal with
this. She staled this was the first time the City of Livonia has been asked by another
community. If the City of Westland asked for Police Reserve Officers and the Chief felt he
could protect the City of Livonia with a legal agreement and the City of Westland personnel
were overseeing them, she thought it was noble that we supported that community. They in
tum, would probably help this City if help was needed. Since this event occurred in another
city, she didn't see that there was a problem and in the future, she hoped we would be able to
help our neighboring communities without going through the cost of having them to have dual
payment for one of our officers and one of theirs because in their City, their contract probably
requires them to have their officers there.
Chief Caid explained that one of the reasons he didn't have a problem with the request was
the manner in which they were going to be deployed, which was for point traffic control. This
is something Police Reserve officers do routinely for a variety of activities, especially for
Spree. Being this activity was outside of our jurisdiction, he didn't see a conflict with the labor
contract. He knew that the reserves were going to be supervised adequately by the Westland
officers and staff. Chief Caid reiterated he didn't think the deployment of our reserves to
Westland in this situation violated Article 46 as indicated by Officer Morgan.
Robert Biga stated all the salient points were covered. This situation took place outside the
City of Livonia, and it was not an activity that our contract would cover. Unless there is
something in the contract that states we can't do something, we have a basic right to do
whatever we want and have the capability to do. In this case, we were assisting a neighboring
community. Mr. Biga stated it was interesting to note that the Westland Police Officers are
covered by the Westland Police Officers Association which is affiliated with the Police Officers
Association of Michigan. He didn't see there was a violation of the LPOA contract and in fact,
he thought the way our contract is worded under Management Rights, we have the right to
manage our affairs the way we want to.
Chief Caid stated he could see a grievance from the City of Westland staff more than anything
else, in that the Chief may have been denying overtime opportunities there. To the best of
Chief Caid's knowledge, there was no issue from Westland personnel. Officer Morgan stated
he actually contacted them and the POAM and the reason they did not file any grievance is
because every single one of their employees was working that event or they had been offered
to work and declined. Officer Morgan further stated another concern the LPOA has is, right
now their manpower is at the very lowest, 86 officers, and it is not enough. Now we are taking
our reserves and instead of having patrols where they are needed, we are sending them to
Westland.
Mr. Meakin stated he was glad there was foresight into doing this because as you mentioned,
Westland used every member they had, when they could have called the week before and
wanted mutual aid and we would have had to do it for free. Mr. Meakin stated at least we got
compensated. Mr. Meakin believed that in these difficult times, worrying about the contract in
an event that occurred for one day to help a neighboring City is horrible.
Page 17 1299u Regular Meeting AuguA 22, 2012
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-93 RESOLVED, that having reviewed LPOA Grievance #12-259, dated
July 2, 2012, regarding the use of Police Reserve Officers, and having discussion
with Scott Morgan, President, Livonia Police Officers Association (LPDA); Curtis
Caid, Police Chief; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance.
Due to a scheduling conflict, Ms. Mahoney requested to change the starting time for the
September 22, 2012 Civil Service Commission meeting to 6:30 p.m. Chairman Tatigian and
Commissioner Meakin agreed to the change and requested the Civil Service Department send
out a notification of the change to all employees.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
RESOLVED, that the meeting be adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairman
Brian Meakin, Commissioner
Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner